In the
seventh and final day of his testimony, Radovan Karadzic went on the offensive
against the Prosecution’s expert historian Robert Donia. Karadzic told the
court, “I would like to have his papers rejected because they are partial,
unprofessional, political, and we believe he has no expertise.”

Paramilitaries

Donia’s
bias was on full display as the hearing wore on. At one point Karadzic asked him
if he agreed “that the adversary of the Patriotic League was the JNA and the
Serbs?”

Donia
disagreed. He said, “No. I don’t think that the Patriotic League when it was
founded specified an adversary. Its purpose was stated as the defense of the
Muslim people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.”

Karadzic asked who the Patriotic League was supposed to “defend” the Muslims
from and Donia answered, “I do not know.”

The
Patriotic League (an armed Bosnian-Muslim paramilitary force) was officially
founded on March 31, 1991 – long before any Bosnian Serb military force existed.
In the absence of an opposing military force, Donia’s contention that it was a
defensive organization is dubious at best.

Donia
could not identify a single Serbian paramilitary group that existed in Bosnia
before the war. To bear out the fact that he didn’t have any, Karadzic read from
an intercept of a conversation (exhibit D304) that he had with Predrag Radic
(mayor of Banja Luka) on November 11, 1991.

In that
conversation Karadzic said: “Our party doesn’t have an army, and if any of our
members want to defend the country, we are asking them to join the army”

Donia
told Karadzic his interpretation of the conversation saying, “You were trying to
bring the JNA onto your side to effectively become the army of the Serb people.”

Karadzic asked him, “Do you believe that my support to the regular federal army
was unlawful?” And Donia answered, “I don’t know.”

Making Moral Judgments

Karadzic also read from an intercept of a conversation between himself and
Serbian intelligence head Jovica Stanisic from before the war (exhibit D301).

In that
conversation Karadzic said: “We do not want any division of Bosnia because it is
both unpopular and unnecessary ultimately, because probably there will be no
borders anywhere in Yugoslavia.” He said, “If the Muslims want, we can finish
everything peacefully so that everybody is satisfied, and if they don’t, there
will be chaos. Everything depends on them.”

Karadzic also told Stanisic of his talks with the Tudjman regime in Croatia. He
said, “The Serbs and the Croats could resolve all their contentious issues in a
month or two.”

After
seeing the intercept Donia attacked Karadzic saying, “I don’t think it was
appropriate for you to negotiate behind the backs of the Muslims with the Croats
about the division of a country in which they were a very significant political
force. So I don’t think the way in which you negotiated or Mr. Koljevic in this
case negotiated was not appropriate. And, as a matter of fact, when you did this
in May and negotiated an agreement in Grac without the participation of the
Muslims, you were specifically reprimanded by the EC representatives for trying
to cut a two-way deal when the rules of the conference and the negotiations were
that any agreement had to have the endorsement of the three national
communities.”

Karadzic replied, “Well, if that’s the case, how could there have been the
independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina if all three parties had to give their
agreement?”

Donia
stammered, “This is -- you’ve asked me about and I’ve responded to a situation
in which you and the head of a neighboring republic which had actually become a
sovereign state were directly negotiating. I think that was not appropriate and
isn’t really a parallel situation to the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina.”

Karadzic: “If the situation was that two sides cannot out-vote the third side --
well, the HDZ and the SDA made the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina and a
federation of the Croats and Muslims later on without the Serbs, that’s
analogous; right?”

Donia’s
answer: “No.” No explanation why it wasn’t just his assertion -- “no”.

It’s
also a mystery where Donia got this division of the country nonsense when
Karadzic clearly says in the intercept “We do not want any division of Bosnia”.

Although Donia implies that Karadzic’s support for the JNA may have been illegal
and he scolds him for, in his opinion, “inappropriately” negotiating with the
Croats. Donia insists that he stays away from making moral judgments in his
testimony.

Karadzic asked him, “Did you identify any action of the Muslim part of the
authorities which led to war?” Donia replied, “I have not made those kinds of
moral judgments.”

Karadzic gave him another opportunity. He asked, “In the entire activity of the
SDA, did you identify actions that led to the outbreak of war? Can you mention
some if you did identify any?”

Donia’s
response: “My primary focus, of course, was on the SDS and the formation of
Republika Srpska.”

Karadzic asked him, “And do you consider that the Trial Chamber wouldn’t benefit
from knowing what the other two sides did?”

Donia
replied, “I’m not too sure how much use it would be to the Trial Chamber” He
said, “I think that my job mainly is to illuminate the conduct of the Bosnian
Serb Leadership and the developments that led to the formation of the Republika
Srpska.”

Karadzic asked, “Do you mean to say that you understood and that the Trial
Chamber will understand the acts of the Serb side without an overall
comprehensive integral picture?”

Donia
explained that his reports are “in no way comprehensive” and that they are “not
intended to enter into the judgments that the Trial Chamber will make regarding
the case.” He said, “My purpose in writing the reports was not to judge what was
legal, constitutional, or justified.”

In
light of that explanation, one has to wonder why Donia was ever put on the
witness stand to begin with, and why his reports were admitted as exhibits in
the trial if the judges aren’t supposed to rely on them to reach their verdict.

Karadzic then exhibited a letter accusing Serbia of “genocide” against the
Bosnian-Muslims (exhibit D305) that Donia signed together with Noel Malcolm,
Marko Attila Hoare, Branka Magas, Tom Gallagher, Smajo Cekic, Jasmin Jahic, and
every other Serb-hater you can think of.

Karadzic told the court “You’re not going to find a single document with that
many anti-Serbs in one place.”

Donia
admitted signing the letter. He said, “I do, indeed, recall signing this several
years ago. There was a time when I actually was not certain that I had signed
it, but I do now have an active recollection of signing it.” He said he was
“willing to go along with this group of people, most of whom I know well and
share at least some views with.”

The
Islamic Declaration

Karadzic questioned Donia about the Islamic Declaration written by Alija
Izetbegovic, and Donia did his best to downplay the significance of the
document. He said, “I would agree that he makes statements in there in which he
argues that Muslims should take over a state if they reach a certain threshold
of the population. There -- as you read through it, I think you barely notice
them at first, but, of course, they have been highlighted, dragged out many,
many times, put on the internet and highlighted by Izetbegovic’s critics from
people like you to Zulfikarpasic, and a whole bunch of other people to argue
that he was an Islamic fundamentalist.”

Donia
is really a piece of work. He admits that Izetbegovic “argues that Muslims
should take over a state if they reach a certain threshold of the population”
and then he acts like Karadzic, and Zulfikarpasic (who is a Muslim himself),
were unreasonable in their characterization of Izetbegovic as an Islamic
fundamentalist.

The
Cutileiro Plan

On
March 18, 1992 Radovan Karadzic (on behalf of the SDS), Mate Boban (on behalf of
the HDZ), and Alija Izetbegovic (on behalf of the SDA) agreed to the Cutileiro
Plan. The document can be viewed at:

Regardless of what Donia may have said about the subject. The Associated Press
reported the following:

Rival ethnic leaders of Bosnia-Hercegovina agreed Wednesday that the republic
should be independent, but should be split among the three main groups -
Muslims, Serbs and Croats. Radovan Karadzic, leader of Bosnia’s Serbs, called it
“a great day,” saying the accord “removes the possibility of an outbreak of
civil war” in Bosnia. “We have adopted the basic principles. There is no road
back,” he said. [The Associated Press, “Bosnian Leaders Agree on Makeup of
Ethnic State”, March 18, 1992]

Karadzic showed the witness a statement (exhibit D302) that SDA spokesman (and
party vice-President) Irfan Ajanovic gave to reporters on March 19, 1992.

Ajanovic was quoted as saying, “If the Serbian Assembly would reject tonight’s
agreement with Jose Cutileiro that would be the latest ridiculous act coming out
of the Serbian kitchen. In that case it will become clear as to who is not for
peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and who is cheating the European Community and
the Chairman of the Conference on Bosnia.”

Karadzic asked, “Did you know of this statement made by Ajanovic and their
general attitude and standpoint on the 19th of March?”

Donia
replied, “This in no way represents a general viewpoint of the SDA.”

Donia’s
response took Judge Kwon by surprise. He asked, “Wasn’t Ajanovic a spokesman of
the SDA at the time?” Donia confirmed, “Yes, he was.”

Donia
changed his strategy. Instead of trying to say that Ajanovic didn’t speak for
the SDA. He decided to attack the newspaper that published Ajanovic’s statement.
He said, “Given that this is ‘Politika’ and they actually didn’t carry the full
text of his statement, they just carried a couple of excerpts from it, I would
say I’m not sure that that’s the case, no.”

Karadzic asked the witness, “Do you have proof that ‘Oslobodjenje’ carried
something different and that he had not said this?”

Donia,
an “expert historian” according to the prosecutor, replied, “I’m not the one
with the documents, Dr. Karadzic. I don’t know.”

The
witness tried to downplay the significance of the Cutileiro Plan saying, “I
don’t believe that your representation of this agreement during the war was
accurate, and I don’t think your characterization of it now is accurate.” He
said the agreement “wasn’t signed by anybody.”

Donia’s
insinuation that the Cutileiro Plan wasn’t really an agreement because “it
wasn’t signed by anybody” is absurd. The text of the document literally says,
“As agreed by the leaders of the SDA, SDS, and HDZ parties in the fifth round of
talks on the future constitutional arrangements for Bosnia and Herzegovina under
the auspices of the EC Peace Conference.”

In a
letter to the Economist magazine Cutileiro wrote: “After several rounds of talks
our 'principles for future constitutional arrangements for Bosnia and Hercegovina' were agreed by all three parties (Muslim, Serb and Croat) in
Sarajevo on March 18th 1992 as the basis for future negotiations. These
continued, maps and all, until the summer, when the Muslims renegged on the
agreement. Had they not done so, the Bosnian question might have been settled
earlier, with less loss of (mainly Muslim) life and land. To be fair, President
Izetbegovic and his aides were encouraged to scupper that deal and to fight for
a unitary Bosnian state by well-meaning outsiders who thought they knew better.”
Cutileiro’s letter can be seen at:
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/documents/cutileiro_economist.pdf

Karadzic showed the witness another statement (exhibit D303) by Ajanovic from
when the Muslims reneged on the agreement. In response to a journalist’s
question as to why the SDA accepted the agreement in the first place, Ajanovic
responded that it was “a political game to ensure international recognition of a
sovereign Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

Again
the witness attacked the source of the quote rather than the substance. He said,
“I simply point out it’s ‘Politika.’ As we sit here, a Serbian service called E-novine
is re-running ‘Politika’s’ coverage of events on the eve of and early in the war
with the sole purpose of showing how absurdly one-sided ‘Politika’s’ coverage
was.”

E-Novine
is a “Serbian” service that is funded by the American government. It says right
on the donations page of their website that their funding comes from the
National Endowment for Democracy.

Karadzic repeated his question. He said, “My question is whether Ajanovic stated
on the 19th [of March 1992] they were happy, that they fared well, and that the
Serbs would be blamed, and a week later he’s the one who actually deceived them.
Are you aware of that statement, yes or no?”

Donia
answered, “No, I don’t have the basis for concluding that he said that.”

Balkan Insight is
funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (i.e. American taxpayers), the
Dutch Foreign Ministry (i.e. Dutch taxpayers), and the Norwegian Foreign
Ministry (i.e. Norwegian tax payers) – not to mention various NGO’s which also
receive government grants.
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/partner_network/

Your
taxes, the money your government takes from you under threat of imprisonment,
help pay for outlets like Sense and Balkan Insight to publish news
reports that condemn Radovan Karadzic and the Serbian people. Your voluntary
donations pay me to defend them.